Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thoughts on pescetarianism?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thoughts on pescetarianism?

    I just recently found out that Mark's wife is a pescetarian (eats only fish). Is this primal? Do we know if Grok's food consisted mostly of fish? I mean even the Inuits ate there fair share of meat right? I'm not trying to bash her choice...I'm just curious. Is anyone here a pescetarian and how do you not get tired of fish all the time? Granted I'm guessing some meals don't include a protein source but just fat right? Salads with EVOO and no meat for example, but I would think it wouldn't keep you full very long without a little protein in the form of some meat, fish or otherwise.

    I have often wondered if all this red meat and pork was as good as fish nutrient-wise, especially since I can't get much grass-fed meat around here. I can get antibiotic chicken, but that's about it. I suppose that even if I didn't go full on pescetarian (it would be impossible for me at my current lifestyle right now) I could up my seafood to higher level, but what added benefits would this have if any? And if I couldn't get the fish wild caught (few and far between as well) would it still outweigh the hormone laden grain fed beef and pork?

    Sorry if I'm rambling...lots of thoughts going through my head. Appreciate any input.

  • #2
    Oh your salad can be filling. I did low carb vegetarian for years. Compared to that, pescatarian would be a breeze.
    Fresh water fish, ocean fish, oily fish, shell fish, crustaceans, etc. There are plenty of island cultures where their protein comes almost exclusively from shellfish.
    Obviously you would have to like fish. Which would be my main issue.
    And fish bones soften quite quickly when you make broth, so the bones are easy to eat.
    However, I couldn't be pescatarian. This is a middle north, land locked state. The idea of fresh seafood is a joke.

    Comment


    • #3
      Benefits to eating most of your protien as fish: Omega 3, minerals much much higher than land animals, delicious. Shellfish in particular is extremely nutritious.
      Drawbacks: Expensive, limiting, there is no steak in the sea. The whole "mercury poisoning" thing doesn't worry me but if I ate a pound of fish every day I would look deeply into the issue.
      If you are new to the PB - please ignore ALL of this stuff, until you've read the book, or at least http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/ and this (personal fave): http://www.archevore.com/get-started/

      Comment


      • #4
        I wouldn't do it. Sure, you may have a great n3:n6 ratio, but the constant barrage of polyunsaturates in your diet would scare me. You'd probably be getting 10-15% calories from polyunsaturated fat in your diet if you're eating fish with EVERY meal! As Mark's post on variety outlined yesterday, it's the variety of food choice that prevents toxins to build up in your system. The reason why Americans get so sick is because wheat is a part of their DAILY LIVES. If you eat it for one meal every other week like you would with a more odd vegetable, like a pumpkin or an eggplant, it won't hurt you. I believe that fish is very healthy, but when you eat it every day, your polyunsaturate level is unnaturally high and too high for my tastes. What is healthier, a high polyunsaturate diet skewed to omega 3's, or a low polyunsaturate diet skewed to omega 6's? I don't think that's ever been shown.
        Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

        Comment


        • #5
          I can easily eat fish with every meal, in fact I eat fish almost every day anyway. I prefer it to meat, and, particulary poultry (dunno why, I just don't like turkey and chicken all that much). But, I see no real reason to do so apart from keeping taste buds happy. I believe that the first nations on the Pacific coast mostly ate salmon, and Japanese subsisted mainly on fish as well. Exclusivity, though, in my view is never a good thing. I can never understand for example, people who have a fit when talking about Atkins, but praise vegetarians. Any sever restrictions on diet imo are contrary to human omnivorous nature and are a fad or a taste preference.
          My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
          When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

          Comment


          • #6
            The only red meat I eat is hamburger, shredded and ground beef. I do not like steak at all. So it is limited to chicken and seafood for me.
            Pax, Lux

            Comment


            • #7
              The only "what Grok ate" is what our direct ancestors ate. The current thinking is that they spent eons living by the ocean and by lakes and streams.

              Primal is what Mark says it is. He considers his wife to be Primal and extremely healthy.

              Look up Mark's recent posts about seafood to see what is best to eat or avoid.
              Ancestral Health Info

              I design websites and blogs for a living. If you would like a blog or website designed by someone who understands Primal, see my web page.

              Primal Blueprint Explorer My blog for people who are not into the Grok thing. Since starting the blog, I have moved close to being Archevore instead of Primal. But Mark's Daily Apple is still the best source of information about living an ancestral lifestyle.

              Comment


              • #8
                This sounds delicious. And it doesn't have to be expensive, if you can catch your own, which if you live lakeside, would really only take a little know-how and a few minutes of your day. And it's perfectly fresh, and hopefully mercury free. But yes, I think after a while I'd also want a steak. There are places overseas where people live on floating docks, and never see dry land, and fish their entire lives, so they would fall into that category. Can be done, but I like steak too. But really doesn't have to be expensive, only as expensive as you want to make it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                  I wouldn't do it. Sure, you may have a great n3:n6 ratio, but the constant barrage of polyunsaturates in your diet would scare me. You'd probably be getting 10-15% calories from polyunsaturated fat in your diet if you're eating fish with EVERY meal! As Mark's post on variety outlined yesterday, it's the variety of food choice that prevents toxins to build up in your system. The reason why Americans get so sick is because wheat is a part of their DAILY LIVES. If you eat it for one meal every other week like you would with a more odd vegetable, like a pumpkin or an eggplant, it won't hurt you. I believe that fish is very healthy, but when you eat it every day, your polyunsaturate level is unnaturally high and too high for my tastes. What is healthier, a high polyunsaturate diet skewed to omega 3's, or a low polyunsaturate diet skewed to omega 6's? I don't think that's ever been shown.
                  So, wild caught fish is unhealthy because of a "constant barrage of unsaturates"? Please read: Nutritionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                  If you are new to the PB - please ignore ALL of this stuff, until you've read the book, or at least http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/ and this (personal fave): http://www.archevore.com/get-started/

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tfarny View Post
                    The whole "mercury poisoning" thing doesn't worry me but if I ate a pound of fish every day I would look deeply into the issue.
                    This is a greater concern if you eat long-lived fish like halibut and rock fish and fish high on the food chain like swordfish (bioaccumumlation and toxin persistence). The issue is minimized with short-lived fish like salmon, herring, sardines, etc.

                    Just have kippered herring and eggs for breakfast (with a bit of smoked salmon on the side). I'm like a junkie with smoked fish.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by tfarny View Post
                      So, wild caught fish is unhealthy because of a "constant barrage of unsaturates"? Please read: Nutritionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                      From what I've read, polyunsaturated fat should ideally make up around 4% of the caloric intake in your diet. Your cell membranes are constructed almost entirely of saturated and cholesterol, so a constant high intake of polyunsaturates changes the structure and increases the fluidity of cell membranes. I've heard that this makes them more susceptible to DNA damage that leads to health disorders such as cancer. If you look at studies, there does appear to be a link between high levels of DHA and cancer.

                      The issue here is not eating fish. It's eating too much fish. Too much of anything is bad for you. It's not the "unsaturates", it's the "POLY-unsaturates" as they're not naturally found in the human body in high abundance and ideally should not make up a huge portion of your total caloric intake. If you eat nothing but fish, you're making your cell membranes very fluid, so you're increasing your chance of DNA damage on a cellular level. That's my understanding. If I'm wrong, I'd love to be corrected. Omega-3 may be the big buzz of today, but let's not forget that PUFA's are STILL the most unstable fats in nature, highly prone to oxidation and can lead to all sorts of health defects if left unchecked. I try and keep my PUFA's low on purpose, though I still eat fish 1-2 times a week to get my n3's...and because it's good!

                      This is a bit interesting:

                      http://www.flu-treatments.com/saturated-fats.html

                      Saturated fats and cholesterol are two unlikely heroes that help us fight infections, particularly viral infections like the flu. These two substances have constantly been labeled Bad! Bad! Bad!

                      And we are constantly advised to reduce our intake of sat fats and cholesterol.
                      But do you know what your cell walls are made of? Your cell walls are made primarily of saturated fats and cholesterol. Adequate intake of these two food substances is therefore critical for maintaining the integrity - the strength - of your cell wall structure...And what causes our cell wall structures to weaken? Among other things:

                      * polyunsaturated oils, which make our cell wall structure soft and flexible
                      * artificial trans fats in margarine, vegetable shortening and other partially hydrogenated oils - found in a wide range of processed foods - which distort the cell wall structure.
                      Basically, the low saturated fat in her diet could potentially weaken her cell membranes and leave her vulnerable to all types of problems.
                      Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 07-07-2011, 08:49 AM.
                      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        From a Primal Perspective the first evidence of fishing comes from about 50,000 years ago which is post-Paleo. [1 + 2]From a strict Primal perspective this would mean fish should be a "no-no" from the Neo. That said, I can't see any real reason to divide Paleo from Meso and Neo periods other than the shift of society away from HG and towards agrarianism which first appeared at the end of the Meso beginning of the Neo but which didn't take hold until about 5,000 BCE for those of European heritage [3].
                        Last edited by nolineon; 07-07-2011, 08:46 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by nolineon View Post
                          From a Primal Perspective the first evidence of fishing comes from about 50,000 years ago which is post-Paleo. [1 + 2]From a strict Primal perspective this would mean fish should be a "no-no" from the Neo. That said, I can't see any real reason to divide Paleo from Meso and Neo periods other than the shift of society away from HG and towards agrarianism which first appeared at the end of the Meso beginning of the Neo but which didn't take hold until about 5,000 BCE for those of European heritage [3].
                          The first evidence of fishing is not the same as when humans first fished. Other animals catch fish. It doesn't make sense that we wouldn't.
                          Ancestral Health Info

                          I design websites and blogs for a living. If you would like a blog or website designed by someone who understands Primal, see my web page.

                          Primal Blueprint Explorer My blog for people who are not into the Grok thing. Since starting the blog, I have moved close to being Archevore instead of Primal. But Mark's Daily Apple is still the best source of information about living an ancestral lifestyle.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                            From what I've read, polyunsaturated fat should ideally make up around 4% of the caloric intake in your diet. Your cell membranes are constructed almost entirely of saturated and cholesterol, so a constant high intake of polyunsaturates changes the structure and increases the fluidity of cell membranes. I've heard that this makes them more susceptible to DNA damage that leads to health disorders such as cancer. If you look at studies, there does appear to be a link between high levels of DHA and cancer.

                            The issue here is not eating fish. It's eating too much fish. Too much of anything is bad for you. It's not the "unsaturates", it's the "POLY-unsaturates" as they're not naturally found in the human body in high abundance and ideally should not make up a huge portion of your total caloric intake. If you eat nothing but fish, you're making your cell membranes very fluid, so you're increasing your chance of DNA damage on a cellular level. That's my understanding. If I'm wrong, I'd love to be corrected. Omega-3 may be the big buzz of today, but let's not forget that PUFA's are STILL the most unstable fats in nature, highly prone to oxidation and can lead to all sorts of health defects if left unchecked. I try and keep my PUFA's low on purpose, though I still eat fish 1-2 times a week to get my n3's...and because it's good!

                            This is a bit interesting:

                            Saturated fats and cholesterol enhance immunity by maintaining the integrity of the cell wall struture. And they don't cause heart disease.



                            Basically, the low saturated fat in her diet could potentially weaken her cell membranes and leave her vulnerable to all types of problems.
                            A cursory look at Wikipedia turned up a study showing that the increased membrane phase separation you referred to was associated with the increased spread of cancer but I didn't see where this was tied in with increased incidence of cancer cases. The most I could find was a single unsubstantiaed line stating that there exist studies linking polyunsaturated intake with the incidence of tumors.

                            This is in conflict with a 2010 study involving human women with breast cancer that associated the consumption of high amounts of long-chain Omega-3 polyunsaturateds in the form of dietary EPA & DHA (usually sourced from fish, krill or seaweed) with a 25% decrease in additional "breast cancer events" and overall mortality. The statements about fishoil supp's seems to indicate that the subjects in the study got their EPA & DHA from food rather than from pills. So while not technically "wrong" your description of the research landscape is at best "incomplete".

                            Sources:
                            [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyunsaturated_fat#Relation_to_cancer
                            [2] http://jn.nutrition.org/content/141/2/201.abstract?sid=f9916c28-09a8-4048-b408-872ac35bceff

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Hedonist View Post
                              The first evidence of fishing is not the same as when humans first fished. Other animals catch fish. It doesn't make sense that we wouldn't.
                              Have you ever tried catching fish with your hands?

                              The study looked at evidence of fish consumption rather than the tool making associated with fishing itself. So while it may not "make sense" it would still seem to be the case that evidence of fish consumption in earlier peoples has yet to be found.
                              Last edited by nolineon; 07-07-2011, 09:13 AM. Reason: Man cannot live by snark alone.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X